New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

Interesting that all the Pilots and Architects are calling BS on the OS...

No it's your misinterpretation of facts. P4T and the Architects for truth are a small proportion that obviously fall for conspiracy theories. As I
suggested go over to PPRuNe and put forward your videos. See how many of them will agree with the findings and rush to sign up for P4T?

Go back and examine your reply to Zorgon's post. Seriously you find that 'positive proof'? And you wonder why people take you to task over your
'Geo Engineering' and aviation theories? It is utter ignorance of aviation that leads you to support Zorgon's post. Did it ever cross your mind to
do any research on the images that he posted rather than just blindly starring and posting in blind faith?

What you are probably misunderstanding there (having been led astray by any number of incorrect claims online) is that the Commission were stymied in
certain ways, in their fact gathering. Not about the details of the physical events, but the Government's sketchy information about just WHEN they
knew, HOW soon and HOW much.

That is the crux of the "cover-up".....it is the Bush Administration's, and the Intelligence community's failures. That is the so-called "BS"
that is referred to by the 9/11 Report authors....and, of course, taken completely out of context by the "conspiracy" websites.....

Dont take my word for it, google v-speeds and learn how and why they are established for certain aircraft.

Balsamo is referring to Vmo (operating speed) which is limited to 250kts below 10,000 ft because the windscreen isn't rated to withstand bird-strikes
over 300kts, it is not a structural limit. Vne (Never exceed) is considerably higher and even then there is a 10% margin.

Rusty Aimer states at 2:30 that the wings fall off at 500kts then they go on to exceed 500kts in the garage simulator at 3:40 (assuming the flight
model is close to being accurate) clearly in control.

The crash in the simulator seems silly and contrived as well. A little right rudder would have corrected the "fatal" roll.

500 kts is.75 mach at a standard atmosphere, a 757-200 has plenty of rudder authority at .75 and the entire premise as presented is flawed.

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707,
720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on
9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100
combat missions.

Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757
that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible
for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical
navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make
high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and
I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and
parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think,
as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was
absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn
before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

Wittenberg again

edit on 15-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

all you talk pilot types please note
this guy ACTUALLY FLEW THE ACTUAL PLANES INVOLVED AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER

He knows nothing, has no "insider" knowledge! He is just like the rest out there who flap their lips based on armchair "sleuthing" of
photos....and usually influenced (and thus biased) from the outset by the "conspiracy" sites. He is a classic "argument form authority" because
he thinks his years of studying satellite photos somehow relates to studying photos from 9/11....but, the problem is he's not getting all of the
evidence to view, and is making incorrect assumptions as a result.

In that impromptu interview he says (possibly, a "truth" to him) that there were no "wing marks" on the Pentagon facade wall.

This is incorrect...and if he did proper research, then he would realize his mistake. He is also misinformed when he thinks he was told that one wing
"hit the ground" and "broke off".

His opinion is useless in light of all the real evidence. He is even one of the "NYC Towers were taken down by explosives" nutters. He is stuck on
the "melting steel" nonsense meme.......Sorry, the guy is out of his league.

January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new
investigation.
They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M.
Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and
architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash.
It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret).1
With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col.Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels
of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s
responsible.
Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When
you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads
passing through Dick Cheney.”
Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes

What you are probably misunderstanding there (having been led astray by any number of incorrect claims online) is that the Commission were stymied in
certain ways, in their fact gathering. Not about the details of the physical events, but the Government's sketchy information about just WHEN they
knew, HOW soon and HOW much.

That is the crux of the "cover-up".....it is the Bush Administration's, and the Intelligence community's failures. That is the so-called "BS"
that is referred to by the 9/11 Report authors....and, of course, taken completely out of context by the "conspiracy" websites.....

How about this guy, who called it a "national scandle" and when he stared to get into it on NPR he was basically shut up?

CLELAND: Let's talk about that here. This commission was formed about mid-December, the 9/11 Commission. We were supposed to use the joint
inquiry report as a launching pad to get into this issue of not only fixing the intelligence community, but moving beyond, and getting into what is
the al Qaeda all about? What is this terrorist global network that we're fighting? A new kind of war and all that.

Well, the independent, bi-partisan commission, hello, didn't even get the stuff 'til a few weeks ago.

I'm saying that's deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing… series of hearings,
that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked… the 9/11
Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration's policy was, and its priority was, we're gonna take Saddam Hussein out.

SESNO: Senator, do you have any documentation or any proof to back up this very serious charge of yours that this was deliberate besides your
own…

He knows nothing, has no "insider" knowledge! He is just like the rest out there who flap their lips based on armchair "sleuthing" of photos....and
usually influenced (and thus biased) from the outset by the "conspiracy" sites. He is a classic "argument form authority" because he thinks his years
of studying satellite photos somehow relates to studying photos from 9/11....but, the problem is he's not getting all of the evidence to view, and is
making incorrect assumptions as a result.

In that impromptu interview he says (possibly, a "truth" to him) that there were no "wing marks" on the Pentagon facade wall.

This is incorrect...and if he did proper research, then he would realize his mistake. He is also misinformed when he thinks he was told that one wing
"hit the ground" and "broke off".

His opinion is useless in light of all the real evidence. He is even one of the "NYC Towers were taken down by explosives" nutters. He is stuck on
the "melting steel" nonsense meme.......Sorry, the guy is out of his league.

RIGHT the top guy in the US at what he does which is intelligence...as connected to the inside as anyone could possibly be and miles above your level
of credibility ..I'll take his word for it over yours..

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.